Thanks Larry! - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Thanks Larry! (/thread-22801.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Thanks Larry! (/thread-22801.html)
RE: Thanks Larry! - OutsiderFan - 07-01-2022
The numbers don't lie.
The Pac-12 doesn't have the numbers media wants to buy. It's about a combination of market size and interest. The L.A. market is a unique market among all cities in the country, with it being the sports and entertainment capital of the world:
- All the major media companies are there
- It has 2 NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, even MLS teams
- It is the 2nd largest media market in the country
- It has USC and UCLA with winning traditions in visible sports
- On top of that, it also dominates high school sports in the state
And people are going to claim that Larry Scott was somehow suppose to stop a media rights company from offering USCLA up money based on the value they have in their market, and what, take less to allow the Pac-12 to continue?
Larry Scott certainly made missteps, but strategically, and financially, the Pac effectively had its epitaph written when it failed to kill the Big 12 by getting Texas, Oklahoma, etc. Scott knew the only way to survive in the long term was to grow bigger. He made an attempt, but failed, then pursued a Plan B that was never going to work.
People get all upset about the offices, high salary, etc., but none of those things address the underlying and fundamental reasons this day of reckoning for the Pac was coming no matter who was in charge.
RE: Thanks Larry! - cardcrimson - 07-01-2022
What are you talking about? The fact that the Pac-12 had the second largest media market in the country and that Larry squander it is telling. It also had San Francisco, Denver, Salt Lake City, Seattle and Phoenix. That he couldn't deliver ratings is telling.
What does the Big 10 have marketwise? Chicago, Columbus, Lansing, West Lafayette, Madison, Iowa City, etc etc etc. How about the SEC? Lars should have been courting the networks years ago when we had a compelling product, USC, Oregon, and Stanford. But no, he missed the boat while he was moving into his new digs. He was an alleged marketing wizard. . . . .Total failure.
RE: Thanks Larry! - SamuelMcF - 07-01-2022
(07-01-2022, 09:39 AM)fullmetal Wrote: A guy who only ever knew the world of professional tennis, yeah no. I guess we can also put this on the university presidents for lacking the foresight to hire someone better.
And more specifically on a few specific president holdouts (cough cough Oregon State) for continuing to back the guy when it was already clear we were screwed YEARS ago.
RE: Thanks Larry! - fullmetal - 07-01-2022
(07-01-2022, 09:53 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: What are you talking about? The fact that the Pac-12 had the second largest media market in the country and that Larry squander it is telling. It also had San Francisco, Denver, Salt Lake City, Seattle and Phoenix. That he couldn't deliver ratings is telling.
This. It takes winners to earn eyeballs. The Pac-10/12 has had winners.
RE: Thanks Larry! - Phogge - 07-01-2022
OF is pissed about what's happened. OF is pissed about the Giants. OF is pissed about the current Football Depression in the Stanford Athletic Dept. What's new?
RE: Thanks Larry! - needle - 07-01-2022
If TV execs are at the steering wheel, certainly you can second-guess how the PAC never found a powerful broadcast, cable or streaming ally.
Maybe it was the networks/streamers who gave the PAC the cold shoulder, I don’t know.
RE: Thanks Larry! - OutsiderFan - 07-01-2022
(07-01-2022, 09:53 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: What are you talking about? The fact that the Pac-12 had the second largest media market in the country and that Larry squander it is telling. It also had San Francisco, Denver, Salt Lake City, Seattle and Phoenix. That he couldn't deliver ratings is telling.
What does the Big 10 have marketwise? Chicago, Columbus, Lansing, West Lafayette, Madison, Iowa City, etc etc etc. How about the SEC? Lars should have been courting the networks years ago when we had a compelling product, USC, Oregon, and Stanford. But no, he missed the boat while he was moving into his new digs. He was an alleged marketing wizard. . . . .Total failure.
It's not just markets that create value for sports media deals. The assets in those markets must have demand. There is a profound difference between markets and the demand for the assets in them.
When you are in the entertainment business - that sports and football in particular is - you entertain and make things a big deal. That's how you ensure you are valued. For both reasons its member schools could and couldn't control, they did not do this and the Pac has outlived its market usefulness as a result.
I can make as many arguments to pin the blame on Cal and Stanford as I can Larry Scott, but who the hell am I to judge Cal and Stanford on making the decisions they made for their own cultures and institutions?
RE: Thanks Larry! - Giants - 07-01-2022
Scott put all his chips on an independent PAC-12 network. He was wrong. Scott walked away with a severance package and the conference lost everything.
On the other hand, Jim Delaney bet the house on a short TV contract and a partnership arrangement with Fox re: the Big Ten network. The B10 was in line for a billion dollar TV contract BEFORE adding UCLA and USC. Now they are looking at an even bigger haul. Delaney retired with a glowing legacy and the Big Ten is a big time winner.
It is all about hiring visionaries to lead your organization. Scott - no. Delaney - yes.
RE: Thanks Larry! - OutsiderFan - 07-01-2022
(07-01-2022, 12:37 PM)Giants Wrote: Scott put all his chips on an independent PAC-12 network. He was wrong. Scott walked away with a severance package and the conference lost everything.
On the other hand, Jim Delaney bet the house on a short TV contract and a partnership arrangement with Fox re: the Big Ten network. The B10 was in line for a billion dollar TV contract BEFORE adding UCLA and USC. Now they are looking at an even bigger haul. Delaney retired with a glowing legacy and the Big Ten is a big time winner.
It is all about hiring visionaries to lead your organization. Scott - no. Delaney - yes.
Not a chance Delany could have replicated Big Ten success with the Pac. The member schools are too timid and/or don't have the resources and fan interest to compete with the big boys.
RE: Thanks Larry! - Goose - 07-01-2022
(07-01-2022, 12:14 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: It's not just markets that create value for sports media deals. The assets in those markets must have demand. There is a profound difference between markets and the demand for the assets in them.Actually, I think it may be that college football has outlived its usefulness as a media asset on the West coast. Attempts to make it a "big deal" out here just aren't working. The idea that UCLA is going to fill the Rose Bowl on a regular basis because it has changed conferences is a fantasy. As has been pointed out many times on this board by others attendance has been falling out here for a while. That won't improve and isn't susceptible to treatment by making things a "big deal".
When you are in the entertainment business - that sports and football in particular is - you entertain and make things a big deal. That's how you ensure you are valued. For both reasons its member schools could and couldn't control, they did not do this and the Pac has outlived its market usefulness as a result.
Comparing the admission of USC and UCLA to the admission of Rutgers and Maryland is interesting. In the latter case, the Big-10 needed to generate some hype to counter the SEC hype that clearly had, at that point in time, made the Big-10 look weak and second class. Rutgers clearly needed a place to land, as the Big East dissolution had left them in limbo. The AAC was no answer. Basically, both sides needed each other, and it had to be a pair in order to make it work. It was arguably a weak move but it was better than no move.
Arguably, the U$C and UCLA admission is a reply to Texas Oklahoma. The B1G is in much better shape nationally relative to the SEC than it was in 2014. U$C and UCLA are much bigger names than Rutgers and Maryland. Both U$C and UCLA need a place to land if you believe PAC-12 football was doomed to sinking further on the depth chart, which is an entirely reasonable position to take. Both U$C and UCLA haven't been very good recently, and it is probable they won't be that great in the B1G either. There are many similarities to the Rutgers Maryland situation.
The big difference is that there are no other B1G schools within two time zones of U$C and UCLA. There are also no other B1G schools within 1200 air miles of U$C and UCLA. That is going to be an immense problem. Rutgers and Maryland was a bit of a compromise by the B1G, but it at least didn't introduce any big changes in how things were scheduled or travel requirements. That is emphatically not true of U$C and UCLA. It is clear that the in-person crowd on the West coast is diminishing. The TV ratings are also not up to the "East Coast" standard. I doubt the conference change is going to "fix" that problem. Possibly the B1G believes U$C and UCLA will be a big draw on the West coast once they are B1G members. If U$C suddenly starts winning again, maybe. Given the other teams in the B1G, that is improbable IMHO. I think the B1G will be have plenty of buyer's remorse. We won't know for a few years though, so just sitting around waiting to se what happens is probably not an option.
RE: Thanks Larry! - cardcrimson - 07-01-2022
(07-01-2022, 12:54 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Not a chance Delany could have replicated Big Ten success with the Pac. The member schools are too timid and/or don't have the resources and fan interest to compete with the big boys.
Yeah, Northwestern, Rutgers, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota sure are the big boys of college football. . . .
And it's not just football, but that's all some people focus on. For generations, the Pac has had the premium athletic programs in the country. People like to watch quality sports. Hell, people even tune in to watch curling at the Olympics. Larry the marketing genius had very good football and basketball to work with, and great other sports to showcase. He failed. Completely.
And then there's this, too. Pays himself a $2.5 million dollar bonus during Covid, then lays off 94 of 196 staff members. What leadership!
https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/john_canzano/2020/09/canzano-pac-12-commissioner-larry-scott-could-have-been-a-hero-but-nope.html
What the excuse for that? He sucked as a marketer. He sucked as a leader. He sucked millions of dollars from and the life right of the Pac-12.
RE: Thanks Larry! - chrisk - 07-01-2022
(07-01-2022, 01:48 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(07-01-2022, 12:54 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Not a chance Delany could have replicated Big Ten success with the Pac. The member schools are too timid and/or don't have the resources and fan interest to compete with the big boys.
Yeah, Northwestern, Rutgers, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota sure are the big boys of college football. . . .
And it's not just football, but that's all some people focus on. For generations, the Pac has had the premium athletic programs in the country. People like to watch quality sports. Hell, people even tune in to watch curling at the Olympics. Larry the marketing genius had very good football and basketball to work with, and great other sports to showcase. He failed. Completely.
And then there's this, too. Pays himself a $2.5 million dollar bonus during Covid, then lays off 94 of 196 staff members. What leadership!
https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/john_canzano/2020/09/canzano-pac-12-commissioner-larry-scott-could-have-been-a-hero-but-nope.html
What the excuse for that? He sucked as a marketer. He sucked as a leader. He sucked millions of dollars from and the life right of the Pac-12.
The Big 10 schools you mention have lots of alumni in Southern California. From that standpoint, they are as attractive as the non-California schools.